Research Publication and Spreadsheet Resource Center

[Kapisa]

https://arkeonews.net/buddha-statue-...erenice-egypt/
"Dr. Stephen Sidbotham, head of the American archaeological team, said that the mission also succeeded, during its work at the temple, in uncovering an inscription in Hindi (Sanskrit) dating back to the Roman Emperor Philip the Arab (Marcus Julius Phelps) (244 – 249 AD. ). The Buddha statue, which is likely much older, and the other Greek inscriptions in the same temple, which date to the early first century BC, do not seem to be from the same era as this inscription."

Likely Gandhaar Buddh - judging from the robe folds and the उष्णीष ushneesh.

Seems like a hybrid to me, given 5 century CE standing Buddha from Mathura looks similar in terms of hair texture, while the robe is clearly gandharan.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...background.jpg

[Kapisa]

Images, Inscriptions and Viṣṇuism
The Story of the Archaeological site of Hund, Gandhāra
M. Nasim Khan Editor, Gandhāran Studies
Preprint · April 2023
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31105.74087

Abstract
The archaeological site of Hund, located on the right bank of the river Indus, has been the focus of different archaeological investigations that have resulted in the discovery of a large number of antiquities some of which are preserved in the Hund museum. Few of them have been analysed earlier but, majority of these materials are still waiting to be published. The present article focuses on the nature and date of a human figure in marble, an inscribed image and a Śāradā inscription recovered from Hund site. It is also tried here to understand the religious landscape in Hund during or post Kushan period.

[Kapisa]

SOURCEBOOK FOR THE SHAHI KINGDOMS1 Wayhind (Modern Hund) in Early Medieval Historical Sources
Noémie Verdon
The historical town known as Udabhāṇḍa(pura) in Sanskrit, i.e., modern Hund, is referred to as Wayhind or Vayhind in Arabic and Persian sources.2 It was located on the bank of the Indus River, now in Pakistan, to the east of Peshawar and west of Taxila.3 Its strategic geographical position as a connecting point between Kābul and the Panjab probably conferred on the town its status as a political and administrative center (Kimmet 2020).
Nevertheless, no thorough study of extant textual and epigraphical sources about Wayhind/Udabhāṇḍa exists so far, and archaeological material is mostly nonexistent or unpublished (Kimmet 2020; Klimburg-Salter forthcoming). Questions related to the historical significance of the town during the Śāhi period are therefore still unsolved. The present survey retraces how textual and epigraphical sources labeled the town and associated it with political authority. It also questions the designation of the town as a “capital” in later secondary literature and finally ponders the status of Wayhind/Udabhāṇḍa as a political, administrative, and religious center connected to the Śāhi kings.
https://shahimaterialculture.univie....i_Kingdoms.pdf

Inscriptions on Wayhind/Udabhāṇḍa
In addition, epigraphic material connects Wayhind/Udabhāṇḍa with the Śāhi kings Bhīma and Jayapāla. An inscription known as the Hund Slab or Jayapāla Śāhi inscription (no. 10) and carved during Jayapāla’s rule (c. 964-1002) describes the town as the abode of the two kings Bhīma and Jayapāla (Rehman 1979a: 128; 309-318; see also Rehman 1979b and Rodziadi Khaw 2016: 119- 121).9 The text honors Śiva under several of his epithets (Skt. bhūtanātha, śarva, śitikaṇṭha, pinākin, umānātha, etc.). It refers to the town Udabhāṇḍa (as uḍhānḍa) as located to the north of the Indus River (Skt. sindhu) and as housing learned men (Skt. vidvajjana). It also celebrates the waters of the Indus. This inscription is written in Śāradā script and bears the date saṃvat 146, corresponding to 989 CE according to Rehman (1979a: 246). The association of the town with the rule of Jayapāla corresponds to the above mentioned description made by the author of the Ḥudūd al-ʿālam. Rehman (ibid.) records another Śāradā inscription dating from Jayapāla’s reign, known as the Barikot inscription (no. 13). Except the two first lines, its text is damaged. The existing readings are thus uncertain, although one can read the personal name of Jayapāla and the toponym Vajīrasthāna (Sahni 1931: 301; Rodziadi Khaw 2016: 124-125; Von Hinüber 2020).10
Four other known Śāradā inscriptions come from Hund. The first of them is designated as the Mahārajñī Śrī Kameśvarīdevī (no. 8) and dedicated to the construction of a temple (Sahni 1933: 97-98; Rehman 1979a: 246-247; Rodziadi Khaw 2016: 121-122). It lists several names involved in the establishment of this temple: the architect Jayatarāja, son of Upendra from Avanti (Malwa region), qualified as a sūryadvija, probably referring to a brahmin devoted to the cult of the Sun; the Brahmin Pillaka, having the title of pañcakula; the son of Vīrāditya; Bhogika the writer; and son of Vinhenda. It mentions the years when the construction of the temple was decided and done. Sahni (1933: 97). Rodziadi Khaw (2016: 122) records from Sahni’s reading the years 168-169, while Rehman (1979a: 246, 314) deciphers the numbers 158-159 from the inscription. The latter based on his computation for the Hund Slab Inscription (see above: saṃvat 146 is 989 CE) gives the date 1002 CE for the Mahārajñī Śrī Kameśvarīdevī inscription (Rehman 1979a: 247), that is the last year of Jayapāla’s reign. If one accepts the reading by Sahni, however, the date of the inscription would be 1012 CE, which falls during the rule of Trilocanapāla (1010-1021 CE), the grandson of Jayapāla.
The Śrī Pillaka Brāhmaṇa inscription (no. 9) probably dates from the same period as the Mahārajñī Śrī Kameśvarīdevī and also mentions the brahmin Pillaka and writer Bhogika. Although its reading is incomplete, it refers to the attacks of Turkic people (Skt. turuṣka), in this case, most probably, that of Maḥmūd, and mentions the husband of Pārvatī, i.e., Śiva (Rehman 1979a: 247-248; Rodziadi Khaw 2016: 122-124). According to Rehman (1979a: 248), it may belong to the same shrine area as the Mahārajñī Śrī Kameśvarīdevī.
Another inscription, known as the Īśvara inscription (no. 6), is also dedicated to the construction of a temple, possibly a temple of Śiva, with the epithet of Īśvara. It mentions the Indus river. Barring these elements, the text does not allow one to draw further information (Hargreaves 1926: 69; Rodziadi Khaw 2016: 126-127). The last known Śāradā inscription from Hund is the Vasantarāja inscription (no. 7). It is in a very poor state and only perhaps the name vasantara can be read.

[pegasus]

I have only read up on early agricultural phase in Baluchistan and KPK at Rehman Dheri. But in India, not sure if they use any other criteria except for pottery to differentiate pre-harappan cultures, especially those in Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat? Some have proposed pretty early dates for Neolithic/Chalcolithic in Haryana (Bhiranna). how reliable are they?
https://www.academia.edu/36042750

They are not reliable at all, Uesegi is very objective, in the same conference there were other talks by others but there so ridiculous I did not bother to post but to give a sample


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpiGOpNGom4&t=476s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSFtoLbaq38&t=1379s

[parasar]

https://www.archaeogenetics.in/speakers
June 7-9, 2023

[parasar]

Microliths in the South Asian rainforest ~45-4 ka: New insights from Fa-Hien Lena Cave, Sri Lanka
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0222606

"lithic technology of Fa-Hien Lena changed little over the long span of human occupation (c. 48,000–45,000 cal. years BP to c. 4,000 cal. years BP) indicating a successful, stable technological adaptation to the tropics. We argue that microlith assemblages were an important part of the environmental plasticity that enabled Homo sapiens to colonise and specialise in a diversity of ecological settings during its expansion within and beyond Africa. The proliferation of diverse microlithic technologies across Eurasia c. 48–45 ka was part of a flexible human ‘toolkit’ that assisted our species’ spread into all of the world’s environments, and the development of specialised technological and cultural approaches to novel ecological situations ...

During the past decade a growing number of sites associated with chronometric ages have clearly demonstrated the Pleistocene antiquity of microlithic assemblages in South Asia. In India, these include studies from South India (e.g. Jurreru Valley ~35 ka [48–49]), Central India (e.g. Mehtakheri ~44 ka [50]; Patne >25 ka [47]), West India (e.g. Buddha Pushkar ~28 ka [51]), North India (e.g. Middle Son Valley 55–47 ka [52]) and East India (e.g. Kana ~42 ka [53]). Recent reappraisal of the chronology of microlithic assemblages from Sri Lanka, clearly demonstrates a comparable antiquity for microlithic industries at Batadomba-lena (~36 ka) [25] and Kitulgala Beli-lena (~33 ka) [1,5,54] ...

Historically, microlithic technologies in South Asia were argued to have developed locally from a distinct Upper Palaeolithic antecedent (e.g. [55]). However, the recognition of a shared African ancestry for all modern humans, as opposed to a strong multi-regional model, has led to a focus on microlithic industries as potential markers of the rapid expansion of H. sapiens populations through coastal environments or grassland corridors [29,50,56]. This is, in part, due to the place of microliths within a package of behaviours thought to be unique to ‘modern’ humans, emerging in Africa by 80–60 ka [56–58]. Such models, rooted in mtDNA studies of contemporary populations and simplistic lithic comparison [57,58], have been subject to sustained critique on a number of grounds. Most crucially here, technological diversity of microlithic assemblages between Africa and Asia was ignored in favour of asserting a typological ubiquity [32,33]. An absence of microlithic industries around much of the Indian Ocean Rim also makes suggestions of cultural inheritance between Africa and South Asia difficult to support [30]. Nuclear genome research, as well as fossil discoveries across Asia [59,60], has also complicated the association of microlith toolkits with the first members of our species in different parts of the world. Finally, the appearance of backing and microliths in Uluzzian industries in Italy, which are amongst the earliest microlithic industries outside of Africa and are associated with H. sapiens, clearly suggests that microliths were not the sole preserve of foragers in woodland and savanna settings ...

Based on recent re-dating efforts, these deposits date from as early as c. 48,000–45,000 cal. years BP [26]. The fossils found at Fa-Hien Lena [1,24,27], and their associated material culture, thus represent the earliest definitive evidence for H. sapiens in Sri Lanka and South Asia more broadly...

In northern India, dedicated microblade technologies appear from ~55–47 ka at the site of Dhaba 3 in the Middle Son Valley, suggesting an early emergence of Late Palaeolithic industries in the region [52]. Here, Late Palaeolithic industries from open air contexts combine blade and flake reduction trajectories, while backing first appears as a retouching strategy from 42 ka and becomes more prominent by 39–26 ka...

In Southeast Asia, the absence of microlithic technologies until the Holocene is particularly notable [108], and broadly paralleled by the archaeological record of Australia [39] though microliths are known from Pleistocene sites in Queensland and New South Wales ... Therefore, the archaeological record of Fa-Hien Lena, where lithic technologies targeting small blank sizes and including backed geometric tools appear sometime between 48,000–45,000 cal. years BP, constitutes some of the earliest evidence for microlithic technology outside Africa."